Dismissed

Lillian Pais and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2012PIL/96/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the Final Policy for Bandra Fair 2012 regarding stall allocations. The Court refused to sit in appeal over the Corporation's administrative decision but disposed of the petition with an observation that authorities may revise the policy in the future if necessary based on current year's experience.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned policy; observation made regarding future revision of policy based on experience.

Lillian Pais and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

PILlodg96-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION LODGING NO. 96 OF 2012

¶5

Lillian Pais & Anr. ... Petitioners. Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Ms.Pooja V.Thorat, for the petitioners. Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent No.1, 3 & 4. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, for respondent No.2 & 5.

¶8

Mr.S.K.Chari i/b M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent No.6

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR J. Friday, August 10, 2012.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The petitioners have challenged the Final Policy of Bandra Fair 2012 framed by Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation at Exh.'I' to the petition.

¶12

By order dated 25 June 2012, in Public Interest Litigation (Lodging) No.56 of 2011 this Court had directed the Municipal Commissioner to formulate the draft policy for Bandra Fair 2012 by 20 July 2012 and to display the same on the Corporation's website. Those who had any objection to the draft policy were at liberty to make representation to the Additional Municipal Commissioner setting out objections to the same. Liberty to make such representation was given to all including the

¶13

¶14

PILlodg96-12

¶15

residents in that area. The Additional Municipal Commissioner was to formulate Final Policy after taking into consideration the representations and to display the same on the website of the Corporation.

¶16

Accordingly, the Additional Municipal Commissioner has formulated the Final Policy and the same has been displayed on the website.

¶17

The petitioners, who are residents of the area have filed the present petition making grievances against permission to be granted for installing 100 pitches on the St.John Baptist Road and50 pitches on Rebello road.

¶18

Mr.Mattos, learned AGP, for the State Government and Ms Joglekar for respondents submit that Bandra fair is being organised for the last more than 100 years and is a religious fair. The authorities have sought to balance the interest of all concerned.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that in matters of this nature, this Court is not to sit in appeal over the Policy formulated by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation. We therefore, do not propose to interfere with the impugned Policy. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case this Petition is disposed of with an observation that it will be open to all concerned authorities to take such administrative and other measures as may be necessary, in public interest whenever needed when the fair is being held.

¶20

It will be open to the authorities to revise the policy in the future

¶21

¶22

PILlodg96-12

¶23

years if so found necessary from the experience gained from the current year's fair.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

¶26

Mlns

Lillian Pais and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lillian Pais and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bharat Vitthalrao Thite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shri. Ramchandra Warik Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Industrial Development and Ors.

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Afak Anwar Mandaviya. Vs Dean of Sion Hospital Ms. Sandya Kamat and 5 Ors.

Maharashtra Tour and Travels and Bus Owners Association through Gen Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

V. P. Patil Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept of Legal Affairs and Ors.

Kishwar Vajid Mirza Vs the Central Board of Movie Certificaiton and Anr.

M/S. Sumer Associates Vs Margaret Almeida and Ors.

Mogra Vikas Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Vs Sitaram Babu Shetty, and 8 Ors.

Pune District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, through Gen. Manager/Senior Officer Vs Kaviraj Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and Ors.

Mahendra K. Ghelani and 2 Ors. Vs Kalpana Anantrai Kakkad and 4 Ors.

Misbah Mehmood Khan Vs the Government of India and Ors.

Mr. Ashok N. Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and Ors.